This chapter illustrates that the instrumental versus case agreement opposition in depictive constructions in the East Slavic languages is directly linked to a grammatical aspectual contrast, namely ...
More

This chapter illustrates that the instrumental versus case agreement opposition in depictive constructions in the East Slavic languages is directly linked to a grammatical aspectual contrast, namely an instrumental case marked predicate signals that the eventuality described by the predicate is bounded in time, whereas a predicate with case agreement signals that the eventuality is unbounded.Less

Case and Grammatical Aspect in East Slavic Depictives

Kylie Richardson

Published in print: 2007-07-01

This chapter illustrates that the instrumental versus case agreement opposition in depictive constructions in the East Slavic languages is directly linked to a grammatical aspectual contrast, namely an instrumental case marked predicate signals that the eventuality described by the predicate is bounded in time, whereas a predicate with case agreement signals that the eventuality is unbounded.

After having discussed how agreement can determine Case in Chapter 4, this chapter moves on to discuss how Case can determine (and restrict) agreement. In many languages, the verb can only agree with ...
More

After having discussed how agreement can determine Case in Chapter 4, this chapter moves on to discuss how Case can determine (and restrict) agreement. In many languages, the verb can only agree with arguments without overt case-marking. In others, accusative or dative arguments can agree as well. The distribution of agreement and case-marking is highly systematic, which has led researchers to propose that if a language allows agreement with any argument, this must include arguments without case-marking. It is shown that this analysis can capture such generalizations and extend them to the domain of ditransitive clauses, as well. This provides further evidence for analyses of Case as hierarchically organized sets of features, and shows that the framework argued for can make testable predictions.Less

Alignment in transitive clauses: case determining agreement

András Bárány

Published in print: 2017-11-30

After having discussed how agreement can determine Case in Chapter 4, this chapter moves on to discuss how Case can determine (and restrict) agreement. In many languages, the verb can only agree with arguments without overt case-marking. In others, accusative or dative arguments can agree as well. The distribution of agreement and case-marking is highly systematic, which has led researchers to propose that if a language allows agreement with any argument, this must include arguments without case-marking. It is shown that this analysis can capture such generalizations and extend them to the domain of ditransitive clauses, as well. This provides further evidence for analyses of Case as hierarchically organized sets of features, and shows that the framework argued for can make testable predictions.

This chapter discusses participant-oriented adjuncts in Ardesen Laz, a Kartvelian language spoken in Turkey. Unlike the related language Gregorian, Laz does not demonstrate case agreement of ...
More

This chapter discusses participant-oriented adjuncts in Ardesen Laz, a Kartvelian language spoken in Turkey. Unlike the related language Gregorian, Laz does not demonstrate case agreement of depictives with their controllers. Thus, this chapter argues that Laz only has general adjunct constructions which may have participant-oriented or event-oriented interpretations, including unmarked adjectives and adverbials, and instrumental or locational adjuncts. A vital difference between participant-oriented adjuncts and manner expressions is probably located in the domain of prosodic realization: the former may comprise an intonation unit of their own, while manner expressions are always integrated into the verb phrase.Less

On depictive secondary predicates in Laz

Silvia KutscherN. Sevim Genç

Published in print: 2005-04-14

This chapter discusses participant-oriented adjuncts in Ardesen Laz, a Kartvelian language spoken in Turkey. Unlike the related language Gregorian, Laz does not demonstrate case agreement of depictives with their controllers. Thus, this chapter argues that Laz only has general adjunct constructions which may have participant-oriented or event-oriented interpretations, including unmarked adjectives and adverbials, and instrumental or locational adjuncts. A vital difference between participant-oriented adjuncts and manner expressions is probably located in the domain of prosodic realization: the former may comprise an intonation unit of their own, while manner expressions are always integrated into the verb phrase.

This chapter models some of the results of the previous chapter. It builds on the recently developed notion of parameter hierarchies. Parameter hierarchies are sets of dependent parameters giving ...
More

This chapter models some of the results of the previous chapter. It builds on the recently developed notion of parameter hierarchies. Parameter hierarchies are sets of dependent parameters giving rise to chains of implicational relations among languages. The languages discussed in this book are positioned on a parameter hierarchy of ϕ‎-probes: some languages do not show any kind of agreement, others with a single ϕ‎-probe can agree with one argument, yet others with more than one probe with more arguments. It is argued that this hierarchy restricts agreement across languages in some ways, but that other parameters are needed to account for the full range of data studied in the book. This chapter concludes that there is no single parameter that governs differential object and differential subject marking.Less

A parameter hierarchy for agreement

András Bárány

Published in print: 2017-11-30

This chapter models some of the results of the previous chapter. It builds on the recently developed notion of parameter hierarchies. Parameter hierarchies are sets of dependent parameters giving rise to chains of implicational relations among languages. The languages discussed in this book are positioned on a parameter hierarchy of ϕ‎-probes: some languages do not show any kind of agreement, others with a single ϕ‎-probe can agree with one argument, yet others with more than one probe with more arguments. It is argued that this hierarchy restricts agreement across languages in some ways, but that other parameters are needed to account for the full range of data studied in the book. This chapter concludes that there is no single parameter that governs differential object and differential subject marking.

German dative and genitive morphology exhibit a syntactic behavior that suggests that they should be categorially distinguished from nominative and accusative determiner and adjective inflection. ...
More

German dative and genitive morphology exhibit a syntactic behavior that suggests that they should be categorially distinguished from nominative and accusative determiner and adjective inflection. Furthermore, the three (singular) dative and genitive morphs of German are functionally identical and in complementary distribution. Chapter 7 proposes that they are contextual allomorphs of a single morpheme, each occurring in a distinct syntactic position. The proposed analysis of their strange syntactic behavior simultaneously accounts for the apparent syncretism and meta-syncretism patterns of German dative and genitive morphology, analyzing the cases of alleged syncretism (nonaccidental homophony) as being associated with a single morpheme (a single set of morphosyntactic features). Apart from the resolution of those syncretism patterns, this chapter provides an important justification of the data structural decision in Chapter 3, to disregard dative and genitive in the analysis of the mechanism underlying the weak/strong adjectival inflection alternation in German.Less

Case and Syncretism

Thomas Leu

Published in print: 2014-12-19

German dative and genitive morphology exhibit a syntactic behavior that suggests that they should be categorially distinguished from nominative and accusative determiner and adjective inflection. Furthermore, the three (singular) dative and genitive morphs of German are functionally identical and in complementary distribution. Chapter 7 proposes that they are contextual allomorphs of a single morpheme, each occurring in a distinct syntactic position. The proposed analysis of their strange syntactic behavior simultaneously accounts for the apparent syncretism and meta-syncretism patterns of German dative and genitive morphology, analyzing the cases of alleged syncretism (nonaccidental homophony) as being associated with a single morpheme (a single set of morphosyntactic features). Apart from the resolution of those syncretism patterns, this chapter provides an important justification of the data structural decision in Chapter 3, to disregard dative and genitive in the analysis of the mechanism underlying the weak/strong adjectival inflection alternation in German.

Whether word-based or morpheme-based, the morphological literature in generative grammar (and beyond) is interested in productive word formation — i.e., derivation of open class categories, compounding, and, of course, inflection. While that includes functional morphemes, or corresponding word-formation rules, it almost always involves an open class stem. This book, by contrast, is an investigation of regularities in the internal structure of a set of function words, the determiners. With an emphasis on West Germanic and an occasional broadening of the empirical domain, the book discusses demonstratives, distributive quantifiers, interrogative, negative, and possessive determiners. The core finding is that there are striking regularities regarding the internal structure of these different kinds of determiners. In fact, what has long been assumed without much argument or explanation, namely that determiners are adjectival, is shown and explained here in detail. It turns out that determiners are entire extended adjectival projections, xAPs, with a lexical layer, an inflection layer, and a left periphery, all part of what (sometimes) appear to be function words. The book proposes that determiners are xAPs with a closed class minimal stem. The second focus of this book is on adjectival inflection in German, which the Book divides into two subdomains, both of which receive a radically novel analysis: (a) The weak/strong agreement contrast is treated in terms of adjective movement akin to verb movement in the clause, and (b) the syncretisms in dative and genitive morphology are related to each form’s idiosyncratic syntax in a way that makes the syncretism patterns dissolve in epiphenomeny.Less

The Architecture of Determiners

Thomas Leu

Published in print: 2014-12-19

Whether word-based or morpheme-based, the morphological literature in generative grammar (and beyond) is interested in productive word formation — i.e., derivation of open class categories, compounding, and, of course, inflection. While that includes functional morphemes, or corresponding word-formation rules, it almost always involves an open class stem. This book, by contrast, is an investigation of regularities in the internal structure of a set of function words, the determiners. With an emphasis on West Germanic and an occasional broadening of the empirical domain, the book discusses demonstratives, distributive quantifiers, interrogative, negative, and possessive determiners. The core finding is that there are striking regularities regarding the internal structure of these different kinds of determiners. In fact, what has long been assumed without much argument or explanation, namely that determiners are adjectival, is shown and explained here in detail. It turns out that determiners are entire extended adjectival projections, xAPs, with a lexical layer, an inflection layer, and a left periphery, all part of what (sometimes) appear to be function words. The book proposes that determiners are xAPs with a closed class minimal stem. The second focus of this book is on adjectival inflection in German, which the Book divides into two subdomains, both of which receive a radically novel analysis: (a) The weak/strong agreement contrast is treated in terms of adjective movement akin to verb movement in the clause, and (b) the syncretisms in dative and genitive morphology are related to each form’s idiosyncratic syntax in a way that makes the syncretism patterns dissolve in epiphenomeny.